Cuneo Gilbert & Laduca

1 RACHELE R. BYRD (190634) MARISA C. LIVESAY (223247) 2 WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP 3 750 B Street, Suite 2770 San Diego, CA 92101 4 Telephone: 619/239-4599 Facsimile: 619/234-4599 5 6 DANIEL W. KRASNER (pro hac vice) WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER 7 FREEMAN & HERZ LLP 270 Madison Ave. 8 New York, NY 10016 Telephone: 212/545-4600 9 Facsimile: 212/545-4653 10 JON TOSTRUD (199502) NICHOLAS E. CHIMICLES (pro hac vice) 11 TOSTRUD LAW GROUP, PC TIMOTHY N. MATHEWS (pro hac vice) 12 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 CHIMICLES & TIKELLIS LLP Los Angeles, CA 90067 One Haverford Centre 13 Telephone: 310/278-2600 361 West Lancaster Avenue Facsimile: 310/278-2640 Haverford, Pennsylvania 19041 14 Attorneys for Plaintiff 15 16 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES 17 18 ) JOHN W. MCWILLIAMS, on behalf ) Case No. BC361469 19 of himself and all others similarly ) situated, ) DECLARATION OF JONATHAN W. CUNEO 20 ) IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S Plaintiff, ) MOTION FOR AWARD OF ATTORNEYS’ 21 ) FEES, REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES 22 v. ) AND PAYMENT OF AN INCENTIVE ) AWARD 23 CITY OF LONG BEACH, ) ) 24 Defendant. ) DATE: October 29, 2018 ) TIME: 9:00 a.m. 25 ) DEPT: SS17 ) JUDGE: Hon. Maren E. Nelson 26 _________________________________ ) 27 28 DECLARATION OF JONATHAN W. CUNEO IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR AWARD OF ATTORNEYS’ FEES, REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES AND PAYMENT OF AN INCENTIVE AWARD 1 I, Jonathan W. Cuneo, declare as follows: 2 1. I am a partner in the law firm of Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca, LLP. I submit this 3 Declaration in support of my firm’s application for an award of attorneys’ fees in connection with 4 services rendered in this case, as well as the reimbursement of expenses incurred by my firm in 5 connection with this litigation. 6 2. My firm acted as Plaintiff’s counsel in this class action and diligently worked in its 7 initiation and prosecution. The efforts taken in prosecuting this litigation over the course of the last 8 ten years are summarized in the Joint Declaration of Rachele R. Byrd and Timothy N. Mathews in 9 Support of Plaintiff’s Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement, Attorneys’ Fees, 10 Reimbursement of Expenses and Payment of an Incentive Award. To avoid burdening this Court 11 with repetitive recitations, they will not be repeated here. 12 3. The schedule attached hereto as Exhibit 1 is a detailed summary indicating the 13 amount of time spent by the partners, attorneys and professional support staff of my firm who were 14 involved in this litigation, descriptions of the time spent by those timekeepers on various tasks by 15 category, and the lodestar calculation based on my firm’s current billing rates. The schedule was 16 prepared from contemporaneous, daily time records regularly prepared and maintained by my firm, 17 which are available at the request of the Court. 18 4. My firm also served as Plaintiff’s counsel in the two related cases, Ardon v. City of 19 Los Angeles and Granados v. County of Los Angeles. We kept all time for the three cases separate 20 and, to the extent the work performed benefitted more than one case, such time was allocated to the 21 cases so that no double billing occurred. 22 5. The hourly rates for the partners, attorneys and professional support staff in my firm 23 included in Exhibit 1 are the same as the regular current rates charged for their services in 24 non-contingent matters and which have been accepted in other class action litigation. My firm’s 25 rates as reflected in the lodestar reports attached hereto are within the range of market rates charged 26 by attorneys of equivalent experience, skill, and expertise. We set our rates based on an analysis of 27 rates charged by our peers and approved by courts throughout the country. This Court approved the 28 reasonableness of my firm’s hourly rates in the contested fee petition in Ardon, which included 2 DECLARATION OF JONATHAN W. CUNEO IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR AWARD OF ATTORNEYS’ FEES, REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES AND PAYMENT OF AN INCENTIVE AWARD 1 consideration of expert testimony concerning hourly rates. See October 26, 2016 Order Granting 2 Motion for Final Approval and Denying motion to Intervene (the Court also approved the 3 reasonableness of Class Counsel’s total hours over the defendant’s objection). Similarly, our rates 4 have been approved by state and federal courts throughout the country. See, e.g., O’Bannon v. 5 NCAA, 09-cv-3329 (N.D. Cal.); In re: Automotive Parts Antitrust Litigation, 12-md-02311 (E.D. 6 Mich.); Am. Small Bus. League v. Department of Defense, 3:14-cv-02166 (N.D. Cal.). 7 6. The total number of hours expended on this litigation by my firm is 91.80 hours. The 8 total lodestar for my firm is $70,207.50, consisting of $69,988.75 for attorneys’ time and $218.75 9 for professional support staff time. 10 7. My firm’s lodestar figures are based upon my firm’s billing rates, which rates do not 11 include charges for expense items. Expense items are billed separately and such charges are not 12 duplicated in my firm’s billing rates. 13 8. As detailed in Exhibit 2, my firm has incurred a total of $787.00 in unreimbursed 14 expenses in connection with the prosecution of this litigation. 15 9. The expenses incurred in this action are reflected on the books and records of my 16 firm. These books and records are prepared from expense vouchers, check records and other source 17 materials and represent an accurate recordation of the expenses incurred. 18 10. With respect to the standing of counsel in this case, attached hereto as Exhibit 3 is 19 my firm’s resume including biographies of the attorneys in the firm who were principally involved 20 in this litigation. 21 11. My firm takes seriously its duty to supervise the claims administration process, and 22 therefore I anticipate my firm will continue to incur additional lodestar and expenses in connection 23 with this litigation through the end of the claims administration process. 24 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing 25 is true and correct. Executed this 2nd day of October 2018, at Los Angeles, California. 26 27 Jonathan W. Cuneo 28 3 DECLARATION OF JONATHAN W. CUNEO IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR AWARD OF ATTORNEYS’ FEES, REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES AND PAYMENT OF AN INCENTIVE AWARD EXHIBIT 1 EXHIBIT 1 TIME REPORT McWilliams v. City of Long Beach FIRM NAME: Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca, LLP REPORTING PERIOD: Inception - September 2018 Categories: (1) Administrative claim, Complaint, pre-complaint factual and legal investigation (P) Partner (2) Post-Complaint fact and legal research, investigation and discovery (A) Associate (3) Motion Practice (CA) Contract Attorney (4) Pleadings (PL) Paralegal (5) Trial Court Hearings (OC) Of Counsel (6) Intermediate Appeals (LC) Law Clerk (7) Supreme Court Appeal (GR) Government Relations (8) Settlement discussions, strategy, mediation sessions, etc. (9) Settlement Agreement and ancillary documents (10) Notice and Claims Oversight, contact with class members (11) Fee Petition/Final Approval NAME Status 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Current Current Current Hours Hourly Lodestar Rate Jonathan Cuneo P 11.75 6.50 0.75 18.00 37.00 $895 $33,115.00 Michael Flannery P 12.50 12.50 $775 $9,687.50 Sandra Cuneo P 7.25 7.25 $725 $5,256.25 William Anderson P 6.50 3.00 0.75 7.00 1.25 1.00 2.50 22.00 $675 $14,850.00 Jon Tostrud OC 7.50 4.30 11.80 $600 $7,080.00 Total 18.25 3.00 21.00 6.30 8.25 33.00 90.55 $69,988.75 Camille Trotter PL 1.25 1.25 $175 $218.75 Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.25 0.00 0.00 1.25 $218.75 TOTAL 18.25 3.00 0.00 21.00 7.55 8.25 33.00 91.80 $70,207.50 EXHIBIT 2 EXHIBIT 2 Telephone Tax McWilliams v. City of Long Beach Expense Report Firm: Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca, LLP Time Period: February 2007 - September 28, 2018 Cumulative Expenses Assessments Court Reporters/Videos/Transcripts/Publications Copying $ 8.00 Travel - Reasonable Hotels, Transportation, Meals, Misc. $ 754.00 Messenger.Express Mail Postage Telephone, Facsimile, Internet Westlaw/Lexis-Nexis/PACER research Expert Fees Filing Fees & Service $ 25.00 Data Access Fee Total $ 787.00 EXHIBIT 3 CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP FIRM PROFILE We specialize in civil litigation in federal and state courts, including general commercial practice, antitrust, civil rights, government relations, products liability, administrative, securities, labor, and consumer law. With a proven track record of winning in court and in Congress, we have represented and served clients since 1988 on issues of broad significance. Neither a mega-firm with 200 plus attorneys, nor a small firm with limited expertise, we are instead a group of twenty plus lawyers who together have over 300 years of experience going to court to right wrongs. We specialize in representing individuals and businesses that have been victims of antitrust violations, faulty products, civil rights violations, and securities fraud. TRIAL AND APPELLATE Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca attorneys are experienced advocates. Between them, our attorneys have: • conducted numerous trials, the most recent of which resulted in a $113 million verdict on behalf of our clients; • argued scores of contested motions in state and federal court and conducted quasi- adjudicative, administrative, and arbitral proceedings resulting in a final adjudication; • argued appeals in many federal circuit courts of appeal, including two en banc arguments; • argued appeals in many states; • testified before Congress, state legislatures or federal or state administrative bodies at least 60 times; and • appeared in many cases before the United States Supreme Court.

Load more